Suicide. Is it reasonable to kill yourself?

[he_who_is_nobody]

You know what I think your trying to do, Bango? You are trying to gain sympathy by pretending you might be on the verge of committing suicide because me or some one else or other people told you to stop being gay. You are doing this because you want to put the idea in our heads that it is the Christians fault that gay people do things like drugs, spreading hepatitis and syphilis, and commiting suicide at a phenominal rate.

Uh huh...okay.

Do you think thenexttodie obtained his mind reading skills from the same place as dandan/leroy?

 

[Visaki]

Do you think thenexttodie obtained his mind reading skills from the same place as dandan/leroy?

Didn't you know? It's a basic power of all True Christians. They know everything you think and everything you know even if you deny that knowledge from yourself.

Or they might just be lying/projecting. This is one reason why I don't suffer PreSups like Sye Ten.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I will take the time to respond to this ... too:

Even secularists will claim "human rights" exist, and that states violate these rights regardless of whether or not these rights have been codified by one state or another. So I don't see what your problem is.

Sparhafoc already went over this with you so I will cover this quickly:
What we mean when we use the term "human rights" is different from when christian-slavery-apologists use the term.
Humanists: Human instinctive and universal expections of how to be treated as persons, recognize by political and social entities. Though they may sometimes disagree from one another, some are generally universally agreed upon, such as the right to not be owned as property.

Christian-slavery-apologists: "rights" given by a magical being who does absolutely nothing to protect them and which does not include not being owned as property if you're a non-hebrew male, a woman or a child.

I don't have these problems, I affirm that it is always wrong to kill yourself.

You'll forgive the rest of us if don't take anything you affirm as "right", such as owning slaves, and "wrong", such as being homosexual, at face value.

Especially since
- you're a slavery-apologist
- You believe it's "wrong" from someone to kill themselves if they're in inescapable pain but believe it's "right" to inflict needless and uneccessary pain.
- your best explanation so far as to why something is right or wrong was "god is very good at interpreting data"

Will you admit this; that there is no real irremediable medical condition in which a person is in so much physical pain that he would be screaming to die for days on end? Because I think this is this picture that supporters of euthanasia like to paint. AHHH! OHH GOD PLEAASE KILL ME I CANT TAKE THE PAIN AAAAAARRRGGGHHHH!!

No because there can be conditions where a person is in constant and delibitating pain.

I think it is just sad that your moral degeneration prevents you from being an empathic human being.

 

[MarsCydonia]

And I just remembered:

Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

There should be no "help" for these people. If a man turns himself in to the police saying "I want to have sex with children, please help not to think or do this" that person should be put to death. Their should be no ransom paid out to any person who threatens to commit a crime.

Those who incite people to commit such crimes should also be put to death.

thenexttodie is also the moral degenerate that wants people to be put to death for simply having wrong thoughts.

So to recap what this slavery apologists believes:
- Always wrong for someone to kill themselves even when they're in inescapable and constant pain
- Wrong to not kill someone for selling marijuana and LSD or for having thought of pedophilia but never having acted on it.

I am so glad I left christianity before I had to forfeit my human decency.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

And I just remembered:

Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

There should be no "help" for these people. If a man turns himself in to the police saying "I want to have sex with children, please help not to think or do this" that person should be put to death. Their should be no ransom paid out to any person who threatens to commit a crime.

Those who incite people to commit such crimes should also be put to death.

thenexttodie is also the moral degenerate that wants people to be put to death for simply having wrong thoughts.

So to recap what this slavery apologists believes:
- Always wrong for someone to kill themselves even when they're in inescapable and constant pain
- Wrong to not kill someone for selling marijuana and LSD or for having thought of pedophilia but never having acted on it.

I am so glad I left christianity before I had to forfeit my human decency.

As (Sir) Bob Geldof sings in Pink Floyd's "The Wall":

There's one smoking a joint!
And another with spots!!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of them shot!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

And I just remembered:

Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

There should be no "help" for these people. If a man turns himself in to the police saying "I want to have sex with children, please help not to think or do this" that person should be put to death. Their should be no ransom paid out to any person who threatens to commit a crime.

Those who incite people to commit such crimes should also be put to death.

thenexttodie is also the moral degenerate that wants people to be put to death for simply having wrong thoughts.

So to recap what this slavery apologists believes:
- Always wrong for someone to kill themselves even when they're in inescapable and constant pain
- Wrong to not kill someone for selling marijuana and LSD or for having thought of pedophilia but never having acted on it.

I am so glad I left christianity before I had to forfeit my human decency.

why did you left Christianity?

 

[Visaki]

I admit that I haven't watched this myself but I'd imagine that the following is worthwhile for people interested in this topic. I mean most things Matt does are worth checking out.

 

[thenexttodie]

Even secularists will claim "human rights" exist, and that states violate these rights regardless of whether or not these rights have been codified by one state or another. So I don't see what your problem is.

It's not really my problem, it's an issue with your notion. You are conflating, and consequently getting confused, by prescription and description. My point was about description - that it is like this. Your point is about prescription: what should be. When I want to say that something 'should be' - I will write it very clearly, otherwise I am making a point about what is.

The issue raised is that secularists claim human rights exist? Well, I am a secularist, and I've just explained human rights to you in a way that both acknowledges that they exist, and simultaneously explains them as existing due to humans creating them. As they are created by humans, I don't assume that we have alighted on the One True Set of human rights. I very much expect human rights to continue expanding as they have done for centuries. New pressures on society and the environment will generate importance in human rights we have not yet explored, or even consider existing.

One you can watch unfolding now is marriage equality. It's rippling around the world, and it is becoming a central issue for many interactions between states with respect to human rights.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this to me.

So there seems to be an implicit, albeit unstated question in your reply: by what right does one state criticize the human rights of another state that hasn't codified a given human right? Of course, there can be many answers to this

There are not "many answers to this."

but the one I will propose is the one that maximized human liberty is the more compelling one because essentially all rights advances have provided a widening of the circle of those privileged under the various laws of those states. When a group of people is held in any way as a second class citizen relative to the justice of that nation, then there is an issue with equality of liberty, and it is not something generally desirable. If one person can do X, then another person should also be free do X.

As such, the operating principle you were questioning is really just fundamentally about equality.

You are just saying bullshit here that you yourself don't even really believe. I never would have made such a mistake. If one person can do X, then another person should also be free to do X? You just told me in another post that only certain people should be allowed to commit suicide.

For me, there are some obvious problems with a blanket affirmative, such as states euthanizing sectors of their populace against their will, mentally ill people being potentially being unaware of the weight of the decision, and children being unable (by law) to make decisions for themselves.

I don't have these problems, I affirm that it is always wrong to kill yourself.

Then I would warn against a paucity of imagination and/or empathy.

I can produce many thought experiments where, I think, you would find it very difficult to maintain that statement.

By "thought experiment" you really mean "impossible hypothetical". I have no reason to consider and apply impossibilities to a world view.

I also think that you are failing to understand that your personal opinion doesn't supersede other peoples' freedoms to choose. Even from a Christian perspective, that's a redundant notion you possess as you are categorically not the judge of what is right or acceptable: you are obliged to believe that only God is.

God in the Bible tells us to judge rightly, He says we will judge the angels and there is even a little know book in the Bible called Judges.

If someone committing suicide / euthanasia is a crime according to God, then it is up to God to judge and charge that person, not you or society. There are no other victims of that suicide / euthanasia (laying aside the emotional anguish of friends and family as that presents mutually contradictory distraction), and as such, even if your God belief is right, then they are employing the free will to choose to do right or wrong in accordance with what you believe the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it decreed.

The Bible does not support the idea that everything that happens was decreed by God. If you wish to argue that it does, in a formal debate on this forum, I will destroy you. Because you are wrong.




[

(Do you agree...) that there is no real irremediable medical condition in which a person is in so much physical pain that he would be screaming to die for days on end? Because I think this is this picture that supporters of euthanasia like to paint. AHHH! OHH GOD PLEAASE KILL ME I CANT TAKE THE PAIN AAAAAARRRGGGHHHH!!

Of course I don't agree with you because it's complete baloney to state that there are no irremediable conditions which produce such pain.

Well can you name just one or two of them?

Of course, this is a vast and complex topic with so many different inputs its impossible ever to generalize with any honesty or accuracy,

I don't think it is.

The rest of your post is just you basically contradicting yourself and preaching to me the tenants of your imaginary form of Christianity. I don't understand why it is Atheists feel the need to pretend they are Bible experts. They don't pretend this with any other religion. Anyway...

 

[MarsCydonia]

The rest of your post is just you basically contradicting yourself and preaching to me the tenants of your imaginary form of Christianity. I don't understand why it is Atheists feel the need to pretend they are Bible experts. They don't pretend this with any other religion. Anyway...

From the resident imaginary-form-of-christianity-proponent, the "christian" who rejects mainstream tenants of christianity... The irony is astounding.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So there seems to be an implicit, albeit unstated question in your reply: by what right does one state criticize the human rights of another state that hasn't codified a given human right? Of course, there can be many answers to this

There are not "many answers to this."

Well, of course there are - if I didn't have many answers come into my mind, I wouldn't have said that there were many answers. Note I am not saying that all answers are reasonable, desirable, or logical.

but the one I will propose is the one that maximized human liberty is the more compelling one because essentially all rights advances have provided a widening of the circle of those privileged under the various laws of those states. When a group of people is held in any way as a second class citizen relative to the justice of that nation, then there is an issue with equality of liberty, and it is not something generally desirable. If one person can do X, then another person should also be free do X.

As such, the operating principle you were questioning is really just fundamentally about equality.

You are just saying bullshit here that you yourself don't even really believe. I never would have made such a mistake. If one person can do X, then another person should also be free to do X? You just told me in another post that only certain people should be allowed to commit suicide.

Your argument doesn't follow. Anyone with x set of characteristics - that's equality. We don't give 2 month old infants the right to vote, but we give all 18 year olds the right to vote, regardless of anything else about them as people. My list of characteristics delineates the set needed to have equality in this regard.

By "thought experiment" you really mean "impossible hypothetical". I have no reason to consider and apply impossibilities to a world view.

No, I mean 'thought experiments' where we talk about highly plausible scenarios that actually occur in the real world.

God in the Bible tells us to judge rightly, He says we will judge the angels and there is even a little know book in the Bible called Judges.

The Bible also expressly warns you not to judge. Matthew 7:1-5, for example.

As for the latter sentence, yeah that's God doing the judging, ergo according to Christian doctrine, it's no place of yours to be judging other people because it is solely for God to decide.

Given that you are not a crackpot and do not believe you can intuit the mind of God - who do you think you are to deny other human beings the freedom to choose to do right or wrong? Who do you think you are to decide what God's judgment would be?

Perhaps you are mistaken. Perhaps there are times when God would be very accepting of someone committing suicide depending on the circumstances - you surely do not and cannot know.

Further, there are no express commandments proscribing suicide in the Bible - only apologetics to interpret certain scriptures to mean they proscribe suicide. How do you know your translation is accurate? How do you know that you are not misapplying a translation and thereby engaging in harm of other human beings?

If someone committing suicide / euthanasia is a crime according to God, then it is up to God to judge and charge that person, not you or society. There are no other victims of that suicide / euthanasia (laying aside the emotional anguish of friends and family as that presents mutually contradictory distraction), and as such, even if your God belief is right, then they are employing the free will to choose to do right or wrong in accordance with what you believe the Creator of the entire universe and everything in it decreed.

The Bible does not support the idea that everything that happens was decreed by God. If you wish to argue that it does, in a formal debate on this forum, I will destroy you. Because you are wrong.

1) Your response is a complete non-sequitur. Nowhere did I write that 'everything that happens was decreed by God'
2) As such, of course I don't want to argue something I didn't write.
3) Perhaps you could respond to what I actually wrote - that Christianity holds the notion that human being have free will to choose to do right or wrong, and that it is up to God to judge them.
4) With respect to yourself, I don't think you'd destroy me in any formal debate. You do not know the awesome power you face, padawan!

Of course I don't agree with you because it's complete baloney to state that there are no irremediable conditions which produce such pain.

Well can you name just one or two of them?

I can name dozens. Note the below are specifically referring to extreme versions:

Trigeminal neuralgia. This hits close to home for me as I started experiencing this a month or so ago. In extreme cases, the pain can be so bad it causes seizures and makes people live in fear of an attack. My insomnia has redoubled because I have to sleep with aircon (I live in Bangkok) and the cold air starts it off.

Endometriosis.

Dercum's disease.

I.B.S.

Paroxysmal Extreme Pain Disorder

Various inoperable cancers.

Sickle cell disease. When this repeatedly reoccurs, it's nasty.

Fibromyalgia. I've got several friends who suffer with this, and when it's bad, it's really bad. They drastically change personality.

Of course, this is a vast and complex topic with so many different inputs its impossible ever to generalize with any honesty or accuracy,

I don't think it is.

Because you're grossly oversimplifying it.

The rest of your post is just you basically contradicting yourself and preaching to me the tenants of your imaginary form of Christianity.

Contradictions which you will declare but fail to point out? Useful hand waving operation, nothing more.

As for your contention that I am espousing an imaginary form of Christianity - you should know by now that I will always support any and all claims I make. This stands in stark contrast with your version of Christianity which appears to have bugger all to do with the doctrine or any church that I know of. In fact, you have said yourself that many churches wouldn't even accept you, so I am not sure why you're suddenly placing yourself as the arbiter of Christianity.

Regardless, if you want to dismiss something I say on manufactured grounds - have the fucking decency to be specific and give me the opportunity to source my claims. Don't pretend you get to be the arbiter by default.

I don't understand why it is Atheists feel the need to pretend they are Bible experts. They don't pretend this with any other religion. Anyway...

I don't understand why the 3 alleged Christians here keep calling me 'atheist' even though I've told them all repeatedly that I am not an atheist.

As for expertise - yeah, it's called study. As an anthropologist, you will find I am fairly knowledgeable about all the world's major religions both extant and extinct.

Again though, I find your sudden aggression here very odd given that you've acknowledged in the past that certain aspects of your religious belief are not standard Christian positions.

If you want to play the shell game, perhaps it's just because you can't respond effectively to what I wrote, and so you're looking for a distraction.

Either which way, given your stated desire to destroy me in a debate, I find it somewhat amusing that you don't know Christianity as well as one might expect from someone claiming to be a Christian.

 

[Sparhafoc]

From the resident imaginary-form-of-christianity-proponent, the "christian" who rejects mainstream tenants of christianity... The irony is astounding.

Perplexing, innit?

Also seems out of character for TNTD for me, although other people here have expressed ideas that seem to suggest TNTD has patches of this kind of behavior.

Given the other 2 alleged Christians on this forum and their apparent desire to position themselves almost as prophets divining the will of God, I wonder whether it's brushed off on TNTD here.

Any which way, I am quite confident that I know a damn sight more about Christianity and Christian doctrine than all 3 supposed Christians on this forum put together.

As I've said before - the internet is a problem when it comes to honest dialogue. Get them round a table in a pub and see how comprehensive their knowledge is without Google. I bet there'd be a damn sight more humility in that scenario.

 

[Sparhafoc]

James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Matthew 7:1-5
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:37-42
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Romans 2:1-3
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Romans 14:1-13
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.


Is it embarrassment to be caught acting in contradiction to stated Christian doctrine? Or is it hubris that makes a Christian declare themselves saved without bothering to do as expressly commanded?

A Christian doing their religion right would know that following all of God's commands and demands is difficult - it's supposed to be - and just as when they fall off the bandwagon but assume they'll still be ok because God will know their true intent... how can they not then extend that to others who apparently have failed too?

Either which way, TNTD - you are very much mistaken. I expressly echoed the sentiment of the Bible when I wrote....

I was already perfectly specific in the post you're replying to, but further, as I've already told you - I think it's an individual's decision, not yours, and not the state's. It's not something you can stop happening - you can only burden them with guilt and hatred. How about that Christian love, tolerance, and acceptance? Why do you feel it's down to you to make judgments about other peoples' lives when it's supposedly expressly God's domain?

And yet somehow... you didn't recognize it as Christianity and tried to pretend it is some 'atheist' thing so that you could dismiss it without consideration.

Are you absolutely sure you are Christian? How many tenets do you need to ignore before you stop being an actual Christian? Or is simply self-applying the label sufficient to convince God of your authentic beliefs?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As for your contention that I am espousing an imaginary form of Christianity - you should know by now that I will always support any and all claims I make. This stands in stark contrast with your version of Christianity which appears to have bugger all to do with the doctrine or any church that I know of. In fact, you have said yourself that many churches wouldn't even accept you, so I am not sure why you're suddenly placing yourself as the arbiter of Christianity.

For your enjoyment.

 

[Sparhafoc]

As for your contention that I am espousing an imaginary form of Christianity - you should know by now that I will always support any and all claims I make. This stands in stark contrast with your version of Christianity which appears to have bugger all to do with the doctrine or any church that I know of. In fact, you have said yourself that many churches wouldn't even accept you, so I am not sure why you're suddenly placing yourself as the arbiter of Christianity.

For your enjoyment.

See now... the circular reasoning I can understand - it's part of the territory (God chose to communicate with us via the Bible - how do we know? - It says so in the Bible).... rather it's when the same Christian who happily uses this 'reasoning' then simply ignores all the bits in the Bible they don't personally agree with that it becomes perversely contorted.

If that's the case, then how the fuck do they ever expect someone who's not a Christian to accept the validity of the Bible as a source of anything other than a window into a historical culture?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Christian reality check:

In the Bible:

No explicit proscription against suicide.

Explicit proscription against judging people.


But those who fail abominably at doing their religion get the two positions arse about tit. This is where religion as an egotistical power trip begins. The religion they follow isn't really Christianity as some kind of monolithic entity because there's no such thing. There are a plethora of distinct but overlapping traditions based in varying degrees on Christian doctrine with extended interpretational arguments (apologetics) written quite specifically by other humans to interpret the will of the divine.

People who do religion like this are really committing an act of intellectual idolatry, fetishizing their school of thought's interpretation, unaware that any and all human interpretation can only ever hope - according to Christian doctrine - to be barely a shadow of the actual intent of the divine.

Born again zealots love to talk about how sinful we are as humans based on the scriptural supposition of humanity's fallibility in contrast to the god. But somehow, their interpretation of scripture must be taken as directly mandated by the divine, even though we know that Christians murdered other Christians for centuries over differing fucking interpretations.

Fuck atheists - God's going to have a lot of work cut out for him judging those who pretended to know 'his' mind, and none more so than those who persecuted others under the auspices of their supposedly infallible interpretations.

Christianity as Fetishism.

 

[thenexttodie]

James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Matthew 7:1-5
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Luke 6:37-42
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Romans 2:1-3
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Romans 14:1-13
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.


Is it embarrassment to be caught acting in contradiction to stated Christian doctrine? Or is it hubris that makes a Christian declare themselves saved without bothering to do as expressly commanded?

I appreciate your enthusiasm. Especially because you are not even a Christian.

Just so you know, I tend not to quote bible verses, for a couple reasons. One reason is that I do not want to give the impression that I have every verse in the Bible memorized. Another reason is that most of the time I don't really need to. Maybe I will quote one or two verses in this post. Anyway..


So you quoted the above Bible verses because you think they show that Christians are not supposed to judge. And you are right! You win!!

lol

No. You are about half right. Romans and James deal with Christians judging each other because there was a real struggle then for gentile and Jewish Christians to come to an understanding with one another. Mostly about dietary law it seems. You guess you would like it to mean that we must be in acceptance of men buttfucking each other and stuff like that. But no, of course it does not mean that.

Sorry I did not address the rest of your post. I have to make a phone call.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I appreciate your enthusiasm. Especially because you are not even a Christian.

It's an enthusiasm for truth, and the topic matter is irrelevant to me - I certainly see no correlation between any given ideology and enthusiasm for truth.

Just so you know, I tend not to quote bible verses, for a couple reasons. One reason is that I do not want to give the impression that I have every verse in the Bible memorized. Another reason is that most of the time I don't really need to. Maybe I will quote one or two verses in this post. Anyway..

I only quote the Bible when a Christian who appeals to the authority of the Bible then makes a claim that is in contradiction with the Bible. Aside from that, I might drop the occasional quote into a lesson.

So you quoted the above Bible verses because you think they show that Christians are not supposed to judge. And you are right! You win!!

lol

No. You are about half right. Romans and James deal with Christians judging each other because there was a real struggle then for gentile and Jewish Christians to come to an understanding with one another. Mostly about dietary law it seems.

This is only partly true, but as it is recorded as part of the eternal guide to Christendom and being saved, then you would need to be absolutely damn sure that it doesn't extend further.

Given both Matthew (7:1-2) and Paul (Corinthians 5:12), I think you have a very good reason to be cautious here as it seems rather explicit that it is not the Christian's right to judge, and that it is only ever God who can judge.

As such, my argument earlier addresses this. If God crafted a system with Free Will (tm), and that Free Will allows humans to actively choose to do the things desired by God, or to choose to do things against the desires of God, then it is between that individual and the god - you expressly have no part to play in it. Instead, you would presumably have to assume that God knows what 'he' is doing, and that 'he' has explicitly set up this paradigm for a 'Purpose'.

You guess you would like it to mean that we must be in acceptance of men buttfucking each other and stuff like that. But no, of course it does not mean that.

Yes, it means that you do not get to judge other human beings in any way, shape or form because you are not the judge, and it is specifically stated to be God's provenance and God's provenance alone. It's also particularly warped and irrational to judge non-Christians by a metric of how closely they follow Christian (or at least your tradition) teachings when they are, definitionally, not Christian. For example, you would have a much stronger case if you declared gay Christians to be acting in an immoral way because they at least buy into the paradigm in the first instance. For those who reject your ideology, there's consequently no onus on them to perceive their actions in light of your doctrinal suppositions and it's perverse to expect them do modify their lives in accordance with something they don't believe.

But I've already written a bunch about this and it hasn't been addressed, so I will just suggest that you go back and address these points about the role of a believer doing their religion because it seems like all the pointed bits are the bits you happen to be ignoring.

 

[Sparhafoc]

We can dramatically simplify this for you TNTD.

Do you agree or disagree that the Bible expressly states that only God can judge?

 

[thenexttodie]

We can dramatically simplify this for you TNTD.

Thank you. I have to work a lot of fucked up hours now and I have some other fucked up shit going on in my family.

Do you agree or disagree that the Bible expressly states that only God can judge?

Disagree. God has the ability to judge some things which we are not presently able to, for instance what is in our hearts. So there are things only God can judge. But throughout the Bible it is clear that we can also judge people. We can find people guilty of crimes and judge people and things as evil. The bible says we should judge with righteous judgement and not by outward appearance.

The only reason I think you want people to believe that the Bible teaches us to never judge anyone is because you are trying to defend homosexuals from Christians who say homosexuality is evil. If I were talking about not letting a convicted child molester babysit my kids you would not be telling me "Oh well the Bible says you shouldn't judge so you can't let someone not be around kids just because they are a child molester...."